6 ms·
I've been banned-for-life from a handful of services after I lied about my age as a kid. I can see both (all?) sides of this: - As a society we ought to be fo
by kweingar 4y ago
I've been banned-for-life from a handful of services after I lied about my age as a kid.
I can see both (all?) sides of this:
- As a society we ought to be forgiving of harmless youthful indiscretions
- As a business you shouldn't have to give second chances to people who blatantly defraud you
- There is a big can of worms when it comes to doing business with minors on the internet. I don't think there's a solution as easy as "well when they're 18, let them log into their account and update their age to acknowledge that they were using the service as a minor" or "just let people open multiple accounts (with wildly different ages) under their name."
- romwell 4y agoI think the solution is "the right to fucking delete your account forver". Google keeping "limbo" accounts is dystopian, and seems like a GDPR violation to me.
- pb7 4y ago[flagged]
- LegitShady 4y agodystopia does not require the government - in fact some popular fictional dystopias are when corporations can control/etc without the government intervening. So maybe just don't word police other people because you don't like their words.
- pb7 4y ago
- labster 4y agoThe word dystopia comes from analysis of fiction.
- pb7 4y agoThe definition is "imagined state or society great suffering or injustice" -- Google cannot cause you great suffering or injustice because it has little to no power over you. Only a government or similar can truly cause great suffering en masse.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LegitShady 4y agoits not an argument, its about the definition of the word, and how you were word policing based on your opinion that doesn't actually reflect the way the word is used. It wouldn't be an issue if you just had given your opinion instead of demanding he stop using words, which was the primary reason for my reply, because you demanding other people stop using words is insufferably arrogant.
- pb7 4y ago
- LegitShady 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pb7 4y ago
- LegitShady 4y ago
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> Is it insufferably arrogant to ask people to stop using insensitive, hateful, or discriminatory words? When that word is 'dystopia', yeah. Getting this offended about a megacorp being called dystopian is insufferable. Whatever your relationship is to Google, it doesn't warrant this level of personal attachment. You're acting like he insulted your own mother or something.
- pb7 4y agoI’m not offended in the least, I’m just tired of reading melodramatic takes from people who haven’t experienced any hardship. It’s a common theme here and I want it to be better. Let’s attribute the correct level of concern to things instead of calling keeping track of people who defrauded you “dystopian”. There’s literally a war happening and an actual real government cutting off communications to its people so that they can’t protest, let’s focus on that very real dystopia.
- ceejayoz 4y agoA lot of dystopian scifi involves corporations; Robocop, Weyland-Yutani Corp from Aliens, etc. Google's got more power than substantial numbers of governments.
- pb7 4y agoAnd yet Google can't come knock on your door and take you away. Calling it dystopian can only come from an incredibly sheltered individual who has never faced any real danger.
- wnoise 4y agoNot all dystopias are of the "direct violence" type.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> And yet Google can't come knock on your door and take you away. Not directly... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-photos-led-false-accusations-child-abuse https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-... Plenty of dystopian fiction involves corporations legally not allowed to do something and still doing it, because they're functionally immune to consequences. There are also degrees of dystopian between "murder corp" and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. You might have an overly narrow definition of "dystopian".
- pb7 4y agoThank you for proving my point: the government did that.
- ceejayoz 4y agoGoogle wielded its substantial power and reputation to trigger government action incorrectly, causing someone to have significant difficulty. IMO, that's at least a bit dystopian. (The blurring of lines between goverment and corporation is another dystopian scifi trope, even.)
- kweingar 4y agoI'm all for grace and forgiveness, but it seems excessive to require businesses to delete all records of people who defrauded them. If a liquor store had caught me with a fake ID, I wouldn't consider it dystopian if they put my name on a list and kept it in the back.
- manuelmoreale 4y agoI guess it would make sense for them to keep it until you have the actual legal age. It wouldn’t make sense to refuse to sell you liquor when you’re in your 80s though.
- buildbot 4y agoThis is a hard edge case in my opinion, because unless you unregister that email everywhere you used it, someone else will gain access to all your old accounts which would leak potentially much worse things than a record saying this email is not available anymore.
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt's not a GDPR violation. https://gdpr.eu/recital-47-overriding-legitimate-interest/ https://gdpr.eu/recital-47-overriding-legitimate-interest/ > The processing of personal data strictly necessary for the purposes of preventing fraud also constitutes a legitimate interest of the data controller concerned.
- eurg 4y ago"legitimate" is doing a lot of work here.
- maxbond 4y agoI wonder if you could argue that it isn't "strictly necessary" after a certain point though. Does ToS abuse by minors in this way really predict fraud 15 years later? If the SNR of a signal decays over time, at a certain point do the interests of liberty exceed the interests of preventing fraud? I have absolutely no idea and am not a lawyer, it just seems to me that the word "strictly" is meant to indicate that it isn't pixie dust companies can sprinkle on any piece of information as they choose. The rest of the language here seems to stress that there has to be some sort of test which demonstrates that the interests of the controller overrides the interest of the data subject.
- fweimer 4y agoAt least the GPDR should allow you to correct the age. I don't think it has any provisions that say that if you entered incorrect data yourself, you waive your right to have data corrected.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThey'd be required to correct the age, but they wouldn't be required to delete the "this person defrauded us by giving a false age" flag/note on your internal profile.
- waffleiron 4y agoI think they’d have a hard time justifying the legitimate interest assessment to keep that data forever. I agree with your statement though, but the GDPR issue is the retention time, not a DSAR issue.
- ceejayoz 4y ago"I have a legitimate interest in never doing business with someone who defrauded me" seems like a reasonably easy argument to make.
- waffleiron 4y agoIt’s an easy argument, but that doesn’t make it correct. Within law “crimes” have a statue of limitations and almost never infinite long punishment. A strong argument is needed to override someones rights for an unlimited time like that. If you work in the EU, have a chat with your DPO/Privacy team cause I bet they would actually find this an interesting conversation too.
- ceejayoz 4y agoAs part of our privacy team, I'm glad it's someone else's argument to have in court someday.
- 4y ago
- ajross 4y agoHow would deleting the account in question help anyone, though? Or are you saying that after deleting, they would then be allowed to re-register after a ban? Isn't that just isomorphic to demanding Free Ban Evasion for All?
- romwell 4y ago>How would deleting the account in question help anyone, though? Or are you saying that after deleting, they would then be allowed to re-register after a ban? The problem described in the post is that the user has a shadow, inaccessible disabled account that they can't do anything about, forever, and that's a problem. >Isn't that just isomorphic to demanding Free Ban Evasion for All? I think it would be isomorphic to Google implementing verification on account creation, thereby preventing this scenario from happening in the first place.
- ajross 4y ago> I think it would be isomorphic to Google implementing verification on account creation, thereby preventing this scenario from happening in the first place. They did, though. They straight up asked the kid if he was 18, and he lied and said "yes". I don't know what you want here, you want Google to... protect it's customers from their own fraud? Does any other industry do that? (full disclosure: I work there, but on open source firmware and know nothing about Adsense)
- notimetorelax 4y agoWell, the law is usually on the side of the young. Younger you are lighter is the punishment, here it seems to be the reverse.
- marcosdumay 4y ago> As a business you shouldn't have to give second chances to people who blatantly defraud you Just to point the obvious, but corporations do not have any inherent right, and this specific one is already denied on some circumstances.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIn which circumstances are companies not allowed to ban people for fraud? Power and water utilities I guess?
- marcosdumay 4y agoYes, the ones people deem essential enough and monopolistic, so they get required to serve everybody. Regulated utilities, companies representing the government, companies handling infrastructure, etc.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoWater, electricity, and advertising... If we were talking about gmail that would be one thing, but internet advertising as a utility is too far by far.
- marcosdumay 4y agoYou say that as if Google was only an advertising agency...
- shp0ngle 4y agoCorporations are people too
- tmpz22 4y agoPeople who can’t be put in prison as a deterrent, who can be dissolved, sold, etc
- matheusmoreira 4y ago> As a business you shouldn't have to give second chances to people who blatantly defraud you Says who? Society can easily make it so they have to. Besides, "fraud" is a bit too strong a word for a kid that simply didn't care about some company's idiotic "you have to be 13 to post here" message on the sign up screen.